REPEAT
DWI OFFENDERS IN THE UNITED STATES

In 1992, more people
were arrested in the U.S. for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while
intoxicated (DWI) than any other reported criminal offense. Over 1.6 million
drivers were arrested for DUI or DWI compared to 1.5 million people arrested
for larceny or theft and 1.1 million people for drug abuse violations. There
is public concern that many of these drivers arrested each year for DWI are
repeat offenders. There is also convincing evidence that repeat offenders as
a group are high risk problem drinker drivers.

This Traffic
Tech discusses the extent of the repeat DWI offender problem in various
states and some sanctions being used to reduce DWI recidivism. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requested available information
from all the states in order to define the extent of the repeat offender problem.
Twelve states provided data. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that about
one third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI
offenders. This proportion ranges from 21% of drivers convicted of DWI in Iowa
in 1992 to 47% in New Mexico in 1990. The median is around 31% - 32% of arrests
and/or convictions. One study in California showed that for every driver convicted
of DUI in 1980, a full 44% were convicted again of DUI within 10 years.

Drivers with prior DWI convictions
are also overrepresented in fatal crashes and have a greater relative risk of
fatal crash involvement. One study showed that about 3 percent of all licensed
drivers had a prior arrest for DWI within the past three years, yet 12 percent
of intoxicated drivers involved in fatal crashes had at least one prior DWI
conviction in the past three years. That same study showed that intoxicated
drivers with prior DWI convictions had 4.1 times the risk of being in a fatal
crash as intoxicated drivers without prior DWIs. Another study showed that fatal
crash risk increases with the number of prior DWI arrests.

About a third of all drivers arrested
for DWI are repeat offenders according to the data reported here, and 1 out
of 8 intoxicated drivers in fatal crashes have had a prior DWI conviction within
the past three years. While this indicates they are a significant problem, repeat
offenders do not constitute the majority of the DWI problem in the U.S. Prevention
of DWI in the first place and dealing effectively with first time DWI offenders
is a rational approach to the problem. State laws, enforcement, and public information
and education have recently been effective in reducing impaired driving and
alcohol-related crash deaths.

However, evidence from the states
indicates that many persons who are arrested and convicted of DWI continue to
drink and drive. A number of states and local communities have initiated programs
and sanctions to deal with repeat offenders, including:

■ incarceration

■ special DWI facilities

■ house arrest with electronic monitoring

■ victim restitution

■ community service

■
ignition interlock on the vehicle

■
increased fines and insurance rates

■
public condemnation

■
license plate tagging

■
vehicle impoundment or confiscation

Further
research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these specific sanctions.

Given that the likelihood of arrest
for DWI varies from 1 in 200 instances in some communities to 1 in 2,000 in
others, it is important to prevent impaired driving in the first place. State
legislation, such as administrative license revocation and lower blood alcohol
limits for adults and youth, and increased enforcement in the form of sobriety
checkpoints, have contributed to the recent reduction in drinking and driving.
Greater public awareness of the problem and reductions in per capita alcohol
consumption have also probably played a role.

Each year, however, 1 percent
of all licensed drivers are arrested for DWI, more people than for any other
crime. States must show drivers that DWI is a serious offense with correspondingly
serious consequences in terms of sanctions and treatment. Mandatory alcohol
problem assessment and assignment of appropriate treatment, in addition to sanctions,
is a reasonable approach
with help from the public health community. Certain vehicle actions applied
to repeat offenders may also be appropriate. The fact that this information
was readily available in only a few states underscores the importance of developing
systems to track DWI offenders (e.g., systems that link criminal justice and
driver records).

1 These
twelve states may not be necessarily representative of all fifty states in the
U.S.

2 Years
in parentheses indicate the number of years in which the records of prior DWI
offenses were available. In general, the percent of repeat offenders was greater
in states that retained driving records for longer periods of time (NM, TX,
MN).

3 These
percentages may be conservative. Some drivers arrested or convicted of DWI in
one state may have DWI arrests or convictions in another state that were not
identified or were not in the current driver record.